To win or lose it all
It’s Alex Salmond who’s supposed to be the betting man. With regard to his lifelong pursuit of independence he often recites an old verse penned by the Earl Of Montrose:
“He either fears his fate too much, or his deserts are small,
Who dare not put it to the touch, to win or lose it all.”
But as the bookies’ odds continue to tighten on the referendum, the surprise revelation of this week has been that it’s dour, staid, grey old Alistair Darling who’s gambled everything on a needless, reckless punt.
Alert readers will recall our surprise in February when George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander teamed up to deal what was supposed to be a crushing blow to the Yes campaign by explicitly ruling out a currency union between Scotland and the rUK in the event of a Yes vote. Right up to the eve of the announcement we were sceptical that it would actually come to pass, because it made so little sense.
When we turned out to be wrong, we still weren’t terribly fazed at the news. Scotland would have numerous perfectly viable alternative options, many of which were regarded by serious economists as actually preferable to a formal Sterling pact.
More to the point, polls consistently showed (and still do) that the public didn’t regard it as a huge issue. They wanted to keep the pound, but for the vast majority – who cross the border but rarely – it wasn’t important compared to the state of the economy or the prospect of another Tory government elected by the south of England.
So it didn’t seem to us that there was much to be gained for the No camp, and a real danger that arrogant English politicians laying down the law would backfire horribly with thrawn Scots who might not fancy independence but fancied being told by a Bullingdon Tory Chancellor (and a Labour minister who’d been at the helm during the worst economic crash in a generation) that they couldn’t keep their own currency even less. Polls subsequently backed that up too, with the announcement preceding the biggest swing towards Yes for a year.
We also queried the timing, which gave the Yes side months to either get Scottish voters used to the idea of an alternative plan or for the wheels to come off the bullying bandwagon. But our second surprise on the currency union story was that the second one happened so quickly.
The Guardian piece which broke the story was clear on who was responsible:
It may have occurred to some observers that Darling’s move may have been driven by Tory criticism late last year of his leadership of “Better Together” as “useless” and “comatose”. Seemingly stung, Darling pledged not long afterwards that he was going to heat things up. Insisting on the currency announcement would certainly count, but it was also a massive and needless risk.
Because the big deal about the Guardian’s story isn’t that it means Scotland will be keeping Sterling. That was already inevitable – the rUK can’t afford to let its debt ratio worsen by keeping all its debt while losing 10% of its economy (with disastrous effects on its credit rating and cost of borrowing), and Scotland, which would otherwise be very happy to swap a currency union for no debt, can’t afford to sit back and watch the economy of its biggest trading partner go down the toilet as a result.
The damage caused by the revelation is much more serious, because it trashes the No camp and the UK government’s credibility, not just on the currency issue but on everything else. As Alex Massie puts it in the Spectator (his emphasis):
Who would believe anything Osborne or Balls say now, when their own senior ministers are prepared to so unequivocally, so starkly, rubbish their position with phrases like “of course there would be a currency union”?
And that was a chance they simply didn’t have to take. By sticking to the “very unlikely” line they’d have achieved pretty much the same aim, but without so openly antagonising Scottish voters and without creating a hostage to fortune. It’s a lot easier for a politician to quietly back away from “very unlikely” after the vote than it is from “absolutely, categorically, definitely not”.
In our analysis of the announcement at the time we used a poker analogy, and the parties of the Union now find themselves in the position of a player who’s accidentally shown their cards but is desperately trying to continue bluffing.
It’s notable too that Darling’s partner in the all or nothing gamble, Andrew Dunlop, was the architect of Thatcher’s Scottish Poll Tax experiment, as Alex points out at the end of this interview today:
link to youtube.com
Perhaps he’d have been better sticking with Kermit.
Nail… head…
my post to The Herald today along same lines –
“Simply put, BT has been caught in a monumental lie. The actual subject matter could have been anything, it is the lie that is now important.”
It was really a spectacular failure. For a start, as you say, most people in Scotland simply didn’t care that much whether or not a currency union was established. But a vast number of people minded the threatening overtone to it all.
Then you have the point that along with ‘don’t really care’ we also got ‘we don’t really believe you anyway.’
And now, when they rush to shore up their original position and rather ineffectively deny any person in the Treasury ever said the lines stated in the press in the last couple of days, their denials seem just as pathetic as their original assertions on ‘no currency union’ which presumably they uttered with their fingers crossed. It would, of course, have been substantially more amusing if instead of a ‘senior government source’ we had been told a name for the source of the leak… if only to see that person then spinning in the breeze trying frantically to deny they ever said any such thing.
To be honest, I would guess that there are many people in Scotland who were quite enamoured with the idea of a Scottish currency, hence part of the unfazed look.
When George made his wee announcement, the only actual wailing voices I heard were the Unionist ones.
And just before George decided to do a parody of the superhero ‘The Flash‘ and zip out of Scotland as quickly as he could, everybody who was not greetin’ and bawlin’ just gave George a 1,000 yard stare. In fact, even our wonderful unbiased Scottish journalists decided to join in too!
Wonderful.
Minor error of fact. Gideon isn’t an old Etonian; he went to St. Paul’s.
Hubris has been Darling’s undoing. He’s now made a fool of himself of both sides of the border for different reasons. I imagine he’ll find future job prospects, in the political field, rather thin on the ground irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.
Darlings credibility was already at zero as he presided over the collapse of the major UK banks when he was Chancellor.As for Osborne,Balls and Alexander(the neckless one),their political careers will hit the buffers when the Scots vote YES and there is a currency union.
As for the leak from a minister, my bet would be Michael Gove as he is the most senior dissenting voice in the cabinet.
Where do they get these Scots born and educated characters who move to the leafy south at the first opportunity and then can’t wait to put the boot into their own people for the filthy lucre tossed at them by HMG.
First the politically stupid Poll Tax was his dreamchild, now he’s plotting the downfall of Scottish independence with yet another charlatan Scot Flipper Darling.
There’s a whole list of these despicables just waiting to be put together.
There you have it in a nutshell (credibility) a word that you can no longer associate with a Westminster politician, how can anyone take (as you said Rev) any of the Better Together politicians seriously now the cats out the bag regarding currency.
Surely their must even more serious implications (regarding the lies over currency) for the Scottish political parties backing the Better Together campaign, such as did they know about the lies? if not why not? and if they did know, how should the Scottish electorate react to them, anger, distrust, contempt.
I personally think they did know as Willie Rennie is still pushing the no currency union at the Lib/Dem’s conference, as if to say “We’ve been found out, but we’re not admitting it” found out indeed Willie, found out indeed.
First post from a long term lurker. Spot on, Rev. The Guardian story has not only undermined Darling further, but demolished the credibility of the whole Better Together campaign. The campaign was focused solely on those tempted to vote Yes, but nervous about issues such as the currency, EU membership, shipbuilding jobs, etc. It’s now been found out, and few will believe anything else said in the run up to 18th September. Once a liar has been unmasked, who but a fool would believe anything he said to them afterwards.
Better Together’s efforts to scare undecided voters into sticking with the Union by focusing on currency may have seemed like a good strategy in the early days of the campaign, but sustaining the strategy depended on:-
1. The narrative being consistent.
2. The narrative being based on fact.
As importantly, the narrative had to be one that resonated with voters. Choosing currency as a prime focus reveals more about the values of Better Together than it does about a lot of voters whose concerns lie somewhere beyond their pockets. After all, most voters get their cash from a hole in the wall which gives them Scottish bank notes, so telling us we couldn’t have our own money seemed silly rather than scary.
The bogeyman, like the Wizard of Oz has now been revealed. It’s a garbled threat which seems to have no basis in truth. Let’s move along.
“Minor error of fact. Gideon isn’t an old Etonian; he went to St. Paul’s.”
IT QUITE CLEARLY SAID “BULLINGDON” THE WHOLE TIME.
I like the picture. Is that one of the happy newly-wed couples celebrating after the new English & Welsh equal marriage act came into effect?
On a more serious note, the “unlikely” line might’ve been enough to scare the feart and even some of the doubtful into voting NO. The hard “absolutely NO currency union” stance came across as high-handed and arrogant and had a counter-productive effect.
Especially now when the wheels are coming off.
Leaks like this don’t happen accidentally. My theory is that this is Westminster’s way of putting out feelers, especially because the currency union was linked to Trident and Faslane.
Westminster might want a currency union after the second worst balance of payment figures ever – they need indy Scotland’s exports to prop up the Sterling – and they really really want to keep their big boy toys (Trident) and have nowhere to put them.
@Rev Stuart
The debt and deficit are no problem at all provided the rUK retains control of its currency. Currency sovereignty is the key; with that sovereignty, credit ratings are meaningless. Just ask the Japanese: credit rating down to just above junk but the bond yields didn’t budge, because the Japanese government, as a sovereign currency issuer, decided they wouldn’t budge.
Yes, Westminster have used, or tried to use, sterling as a club to beat some fear into Scotland, and it’s failed. That doesn’t change the truth that a currency union would badly damage the rUK economy. Do Westminster understand that? It’s impossible to tell from what they say, but if they don’t, and they give up currency sovereignty, then the only remaining question is how long until disaster strikes.
“Westminster’s emphatic rejection was taken on the specific advice of the former chancellor and Better Together chief, Alistair Darling.” Bet they wont do that again but its too late now, ha!
Anyway how can Flipper Darling have got it so wrong? Get up there George, tell them no sterling, zap home for tiffin without answering any questions and its all over for YES, trust me I’m a proud Scot, I know them better even than Gordon.
If the rumours are correct the currency ‘threat’ was Darling’s idea. Hmm. Creatures like Darling are not permitted to have ideas, even if they were capable. He was handed a bomb, threw it and blew his own arse off – but he was only obeying orders. Watch his handlers drop him.
lumilumi
“leaks like this don”t happen accidentally”
You are right in that assertion,but most leaks are by ambitious politicians undermining their colleagues.Nasty business to be in.
That external deficit is precisely why the rUK will need to retain currency sovereignty; it is that sovereignty that allows the UK, and later the rUK, to finance the external deficit. Without sovereignty they would have to go cap in hand to the bond markets; the Rev has it backwards. What the Rev says about the jump in the debt ratio and the loss of Scottish exports would be a problem if the rUK gave up currency sovereignty, not if there is no union.
And it’s not as if Scotland needs a union either; with its developed and reasonably mixed economy, and likely export surpluses, you’d be hard pressed to find a potential new nation state in a better position to introduce its own currency.
If anyone was in any doubt that Alistair Darling is not a complete buffoon & hopelessly inadequate in politics, those second chance givers should realise now, that he has just blown his last shred of credibility.
His economic incompetence was never in question though after he walked away from the Treasury leaving behind more than £800 billion of public debt.
He claimed in December 2009 that, ‘My pre-Budget report will halve the deficit over four years and protect front line services.’ and ‘I’m confident that the economy will return to moderate growth next year. But risks remain, and the recovery must be secured.’
Those with a good memory will recall that the UK economy shrunk by a net 3% during his tenure from 2007 to 2010 as Chancellor.
But not only has the unionist position on currency been blown apart, Alistair Darling’s own reliability amongst his Westminster backers has now been thoroughly dismantled.
You’ve just observed Darling make a decision to bluff the electorate about the currency, not as a result from pressure from the pro independence side but because of pressure from his own team! He then invited Salmond to call his bluff, naively believing that Salmond would blink first & declare a currency plan B.
Tragically for Darling though, it now looks like it was someone in his inner circle who blinked first. Meanwhile, Salmond & the YES side must be chuckling at the mess Darling has created for himself & may now be placing bets with each other, guessing how long this buffoon is going to remain in charge of the NO campaign.
The problem for the NO side now is that having seen the polls converge, it is going to be a tough decision for anyone else to pick up the baton, knowing that the risk of losing, increases as each week passes. If they lose the referendum, their political career is finished.
Meanwhile Darling must be chewing his nails to the quick. It seems incredible that he would win any seat in an independent Scotland & his return to law looks equally bleak since he resigned from the Faculty of Advocates in January 2010 before his Westminster expense irregularities could be fully investigated.
I hear that Aldi is hiring though.
I suppose darling could write a speech about it all, £31,500 for 3 speeches recently…some are clearly Better Together than others.
There has been more media reports criticising the No campaign recently, so perhaps the betting shops should be offering odds about when BT officially throw the towel in rather than if there is an actual Yes or No vote !
How can BT change their leader at this stage? Isn’t it way too late? It seems totally impractical to me.
Obviously Darling was and is in the job with the intention of seeing it through to the end. Sacking him now would surely just confirm that they’re in far bigger trouble than they’re letting on or the polls demonstrate, and hasten their slide.
The ‘trading a formal union for a place to keep Trident’ spin was also interesting. If I understand it correctly, Scotland doesn’t need a formal union nearly as much as rUK does, so I hope that bit of bargaining will be very short lived indeed: “GTFF”.
Dear Mr Mitchell
Thank you for your interest in Labour’s proposals to further extend and enhance devolution for Scotland within the United Kingdom. I am assuming that you are a constituent, but would be grateful if you could provide your address for our records.
The Labour Party is the Party of devolution. Our founder, Keir Hardie, promoted Home Rule in the early 1900s, we participated in the Constitutional Convention in the 1980s and in 1999 we delivered a Scottish Parliament. In 2012, we extended these powers further when we supported the Scotland Act. And in 2016, as a result of these changes, the biggest transfer of fiscal powers since the Act of Union will take place.
In spring 2012, Johann Lamont established a Devolution Commission to examine what could be done to strengthen devolution further. Following two years of deliberations and a yearlong public consultation, we published our proposals on 18th March. The final report of the Commission was endorsed unanimously by Scottish Labour Party Conference on 21st March.
Our starting principle is that we believe in a society in which resources are pooled and shared across the whole country, and in which those with the broadest shoulders and greatest resources contribute most to the support of those in need.
Our report is wide-ranging and includes a number of recommendations, including:
· Further devolution of income tax, discussed in more detail below.
· Devolution of housing benefit and attendance allowance, to align more closely the provision of benefits in an area closely related to devolved services.
· Devolution of the work programme to Scottish local authorities to better meet the needs of local labour markets.
The report of the commission is extensive and also includes proposals to increase the powers available to our island communities, to improve local democratic accountability and to establish better enforcement mechanisms for health and safety in Scotland, including the establishment of a Scottish Health and Safety executive.
On income tax, we believe that the changes made by the Scotland Act 2012 are significant, but there is scope to go further.
· Labour would therefore give the Scottish Parliament the power to raise around £2 billion more in revenues beyond the recent Scotland Act.
· We will do this by widening the variation in income tax in the Scotland Act by half from 10p up to 15p.
· This will mean that three-quarters of basic rate income tax in Scotland will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament.
· The Scottish Parliament could, using the powers of the Scotland Act 2012, and our extension to their scope, choose to lower income tax, below the UK level, across all income tax bands.
· Equally, it would be possible to use the same power to increase tax, above the UK level, across all bands.
· Alternatively, if the Scottish Parliament wished to exercise greater flexibility between bands, Labour’s proposals mean that it would be empowered to do so by applying Scottish Progressive Rates of Income Tax to increase either the higher or additional rates of tax.
Labour’s proposals for further tax powers are designed to enhance fiscal accountability and flexibility at a Scottish level, while preventing destructive income tax competition between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Labour’s policy is that fair taxation for the highest earners would be achieved by setting the additional rate at 50p.
Thank you for your interest in the final report of our devolution commission. If you require any more detail on our income tax policy, this can be found on page 148 – 151 of the report. If you wish to read the full report, it can be found on the Scottish Labour website at link to scottishlabour.org.uk
Yours sincerely,
Elaine Murray
MSP for Dumfriesshire
Shadow Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs
Constituency Office 01387 279205: Parliamentary Office 0131 348 5826
Mobile 07919392049
Twitter @elainekmurray
From: Cyril Mitchell [mailto:cyril.mitchell@homecall.co.uk]
Sent: 27 March 2014 10:55
To: Murray E (Elaine), MSP
Subject: devolution plans
Hello Elaine, you have done good work in this constituancy yet I need answers to Labours plans if there is a No vote.
I was a previous Labour voter ,who became so scunnered with their drift to the right that I vowed never to vote Labour again until there was a genuine Scottish Labour and not a sub branch of the Westminster one. At present there is not even a fag paper betwteen Labour and Tories. surely you know that too, or at least, I hope you do?
I would like to know how the powers will work if there is a NO vote, (assuming the people of england can be persuaded to elect a Labour government in 2015, which looks very unlikely.
Questions I would like answered:
!. Johann Lamont told Gordon Brewer this month that Scotland would not be allowed to have a toporate of tax which was lower than the UK’s top rate.
Under your proposals, would Scotland be allowed to undercut the UK on the basic rate (or the 10p rate which UK Labour is commited to introducing if elected in 2015)?
2. Ms Lamont made plain, however, that it would be possible for Scotland to have a higher top rate than the UK.. Would Scotland also have the ability to increase the basic rate above the UK level, or only the higher rates?
3. If the answer to Q1 is “N0”, then if Scotland ever chose to unilaterally raise the upper rate it would be impossible to ever lower it again-because the proposals only allow the upper rate to be decrreased if all other rates are decreased along with it, and doing so would result in Scotland haver a lower basic rate than the UK, which would be illegal.
Are the proposals deliberately intended to create a situation where irrespective of what government was elected to Holyrood in the future and what its policies/mandate were, it could only ever increase the top rates of tax, never lower them?
4.If, on the other hand, the answer to Q1 is “Yes”, lojwering the toop rate after a previous increase- so that it was the same as the UK’s but the basic rate was now below the UK’s- could it reasonably be expected to cause damaging competition, as workers from the rest of the UK flooded into Scotland looking jfor jobs on which they would have to pay lower taxes? do your proposals contain any measures to counter this problem?
5.Meanwhile, if the UK raised the top tax rate-as Ed Milliband proposes- we know from Ms Lamont’s public comments that Scotland would be forced to follow suit. But if the UK then restored it to its original level (perhaps as a result of a different government being eleced) would Scotland be unable to do so for the reasons outlined in Q1, and be forced to eep an upper tax rate higher than that of the UK?
6.If the answer to Q5 is “Yes”, does that mean that a UK goverment could, if it chose to for any reason, deliberately engineer a situation whereby it had a permanantly lower top rate of tax than Scotland, putting Scotland at a locked – in disadvantage by incentivising the wealthy to move ut of Scotland to enjoy the lower top rate in the rest of the UK?
Yours sincerely,
Cyril Mitchell
Ps. Please encourage Ms Lamont to stop coming across as so consumed with hatred for Salmond and the SNP and thereby many of the Scottish people. It is a massive turn off. She does not look like a likekable person. Seriously needs to have a word with her scriptwriters or get new ones.
Tthe recent conference just littered with remarks about Salmond and SNP weird!
**********************************************************************
For latest news and information about all aspects of Parliamentary business, MSPs and our work, visit the Parliament’s website at link to scottish.parliament.uk
For information about how you can visit the Parliament, go to link to scottish.parliament.uk
Watch Parliamentary business live at link to scottish.parliament.uk
Faodar pàirt a ghabhail ann am Pàrlamaid na h-Alba tron Ghàidhlig. Tha barrachd fiosrachaidh ri fhaighinn sa phlana Ghàidhlig againn aig link to scottish.parliament.uk
The information in this e-mail transmission and any files or attachments transmitted with it are strictly confidential and may contain privileged information. It is intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, disclose or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your computer system and notify the sender as soon as possible.
While this e-mail message and attachments have been swept by the content filter software for the presence of computer viruses, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body does not guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for damage sustained as a result of a virus. It is the recipient’s responsibility to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect their systems or data or otherwise incur liability in law.
**********************************************************************
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4354 / Virus Database: 3722/7269 – Release Date: 03/29/14
Morag,
How can BT change their leader at this stage? Isn’t it way too late?
To be honest, Morag, I agree. It’s the same with Scottish Labour. If they replace Lamont before the Referendum, then it means that something is seriously wrong in Scotland. Everybody (except those who follow politics like ourselves) would have their feelers up wondering what has happened. What’s going on? Why the panic?
The whole Better Together Campaign is starting to look like the parachute jump from hell, where the parachutist himself is holding onto a big old heavy anvil while unable to pull the string …and that big ol’ ground below is beginning to look mighty close!
It’s just the best unionist spin that could be put on it. It’s nonsense. (I’m currently falling out with friends by email over that Greg Christison piece in the Express, which is a thoroughly dishonest piece of journalism.)
No doubt there are negotiations to go through about the logistics and time-scale of the removal, but that’s that. Indeed, Westminster needs the currency union far more than we do. This is no more than an attempt to get the biggest thing they can grab in exchange for a concession they’ve realised they have to make.
That last was to Kalmar, obviously. Damn fast-moving threads!
JLT, I agree. They’ve totally misjudged the mood and indeed the psyche of the Scottish people. But they still seem to be ahead in the polls. If they blink to the extent of replacing leaders less than six months out, it’s tantamount to an admission that they’re essentially failing.
Flipper got it so wrong because Labour in Scotland have traditionally viewed the Scottish electorate as Mushroom Club Ballot Box Fodder: Feed them any shyte you like, the dozy buggers will vote Labour anyway.
Labour are only now waking up to the fact that the Scottish electorate’s alarm clock went off on 3 May 2007.
Scottish Labour: They don’t like it up ’em, Captain (Darling).
It seems to me that Stuart’s analysis above is basically in line with the Scottish government position on the issue. I understand it reasonably well, because it’s well explained.
However, FlimFlamMan seems to be claiming that Stuart’s analysis, and by implication that of the Scottish government, is entirely upside-down. I’m not enough of an expert to know who’s right about this, but does anyone else have a tie-breaking view on the issue?
Morag
How will rUK finance its external deficit if it gives up its currency sovereignty?
It won’t be able to control bond yields, since it won’t be the source of the currency it uses.
It won’t be able to ‘print money’* since, again, it won’t be the source of that currency.
It will be forced to pay whatever yields are demanded by bond traders, and austerity would likely increase in order to increase ‘competitiveness’, just as in the Euro periphery.
A disaster waiting to happen.
Unionists hint at CU in return for hosting trident(whether they can or not).
Scottish government almost immediately states, On yer bike !!
Clear and unequivical.
BT probably hoping for 2 things here,
1. Backtracking on CU issue without losing too much face by their way of it.
2. Hoping SG jumped on it so they could shout about SNP breaking pledge on No Nukes in Scotland.
Maybe(probably)giving BT too much credit here?
It’s an oldie, but adaptable –
Darling walks into the doctor’s surgery with a huge toad hanging from his forehead.
The doctor does a double-take, clears his throat and says ,i>’Okay, what seems to be the problem?’
The toad says, ‘Not too sure. It started as a wart on my arse.’
As I have often said, all you need to do is consider that EVERYTHING the Unionists say, is a lie. Do this and everything becomes clearer and you will sleep at night.
What I find laughable is the suggestion that a currency union may be used as a carrot for allowing Trident to remain near our largest city, or ANYWHERE in Scotland. That is not going to happen.
What will really happen will be, that with a YES vote, THEY will have to offer something in order for us to actually take it.
They will be desperate to quickly sign us up to a CU.
Why, because if we take them at their word then we have to look at options, none of which will suit rUK, because their decline will follow at a faster rate. No payments from Scotland towards THEIR debt, no Scottish GDP going through the Sterling are. Which will be holding it up.
Some Scots may prefer to peg to the pound and have NO DEBT.
If that were to happen who would blame Scotland? After all they are adamant aren’t they!, they would have themselves to blame.
So the question is, what will they offer us, for taking the risk of being in a sterling Union?
SO Darling, Dunlop, Osborne, balls, Cameron, Charmichael, and probably J Lamont , and well who ever else knew there dirty big secret ????? o yes and the muppet D Alexander . all caught bonnie telling mega porkies , it’s a true saying ,you can hold a thieve by the hand ,and show him were he went wrong, but you can never hold a liars tongue!
I don’t buy the idea that Darling is in charge and not only told Osborne, Balls and Alexander what position to take but actually did as he said. I’ve only ever seen him as a front man.
@Morag
Re the polls, I hold fast to the advice of the Québécois campaigners on YouTube,
“Don’t believe the polls, they will underestimate the Yes vote by 10%.”
By that reckoning we’re already ahead, somewhere in the low fifties. By September we’ll be cruising above 60%.
I would have to agree with you there, but they all knew about this of that I’am sure. I really don’t know what to think about these people now…..
Morag
Well, I still suspect, or maybe just hope, that the SG, Salmond, are smart enough to be playing Westminster. Mainstream economics has fundamentally failed; it created the conditions for the global crisis and then failed to either fix the mess or analyse its own failings.
So mainstream economists are still the ones in positions of power and influence; any Scottish government consultation, like the fiscal commission, is going to be taking advice from economists who are part of that failed pool. That doesn’t mean the SG can’t also look further afield, to economists who still have no influence but who did manage to predict the crash, and also predicted why the response wouldn’t lead to sustainable recovery.
Most of those economists are in the Post Keynesian school, and I hope the SG is aware of them.
“But as the bookies’ odds continue to tighten on the referendum,”
As was mentioned the other day on a separate thread Ladbrokes still giving odds of 7/1 for an over 55% YES outcome on the referendum and 5/2 for a YES win.
Took the plunge for an over 55% YES outcome this morning.
This article nails the point, that now the whole world knows that Better together are liars, that Chancellor George Osborne is a liar, and the UK Government and the Labour party are liars, when it comes to Scottish independence. Nobody should take anything they say on the matter seriously from now on.
However, there is worse to come, by going on TV and claiming that ‘no, there really, really will not be a currency union, regardless of what the cabinet minister has said to the Guardian’, people such as the secretary of State for Portsmouth, Alistair Carmichael, and David Cameron are beginning to look ridiculous. Everybody now knows the truth, so by pretending that the lie is still true, Better Together, and other assorted unionists just look silly. They will if they are not careful start to become objects of total derision.
I honestly, find it hard to believe, that with the full weight of the entire London civil service, and all their spin doctors, that the anti independence campaign has turned into such a mess. However, the real truth, is as I stated right at the beginning of this process, that this is a win-win process for the Tories and a lose-lose process for Labour. Consider, if NO wins, David Cameron will take all the credit, but if YES wins, it is the likes of Labour’s Alistair Darling, Alistair Carmichael and ‘Scottish’ Labour who will be blamed.
This is the harsh reality of Labour in Scotland, fuelled by their pathological hatred for the SNP, having jumped into bed with the Tories, now find themselves caught in a trap. They have only themselves to blame. Perhaps it was sage advice indeed from the First Minister at First Minister’s questions this week, when he warned Labour, that ‘if they want to sup with the Tories, they’d best use a long spoon’.
I do genuinely think this is a pivotal moment in the whole independence process. Unionists have been shown up as lying to the people of Scotland, and then continuing to lie, even when everybody knows they are lying. It is simply untenable, and Darling deserves ridicule, for carrying on with this.
The message is clear, regard everything a unionist anti independence campaigner or the Westminster Government says as a lie, until proven otherwise.
Alistair Darling’s Better Togethers are going down in history as more AntiScot than they’re London Masters. Do they realise this will be online till the end of time. What a legacy to leave, a new Parcel o’ Rogues.
I’ve come late to the barricade, I’m onboard regardless of the forces against us! Both my parents were conscripted to fight HITLER and got nothing for it, from the Lords and Masters! For fighting, winning, surviving WW2 and 15years of rationing they got a rented exArmy Corrigated Iron Nissan Hut to bring up a family. What joy, not. ITS TIME to control our own destiny. Cybernats OnFire.
Morag
They’ve always mistaken the Scots’ psyche – they think that we’re, essentially, English but with a funny accent. That’s why they invariably get the mood of the Scots, or what will press our buttons, wrong – they just don’t know us or even care to know us. I hope that they continue to mistake us until, at least, after the referendum. And before anyone shouts at me, by “they” I mean the Westminster establishment.
I don’t believe the polls are a real reflection of how Scots will vote – I think Yes are winning and that will become more clear once the 16-week period starts and people who aren’t on the internet will get an opportunity to hear the real facts.
If they get rid of Darling now it is tantamount to admitting defeat and I believe it’s now too late for them to embed someone else. If they don’t; they have an excuse in him for their failure.
Answer truthfully (yes or no) to the following question: Will the next word you say be ‘no’?
Or if you prefer…
This is a well known paradox written by the great stoical logician Chrysippos. The poet, grammarian and critic Philetus of Cos was said to have died of exhaustion attempting to resolve it.
A Cretan sails to Greece and says to some Greek men who are standing upon the shore: “All Cretans are liars.” Did he speak the truth, or did he lie?
A week later, the Cretan sailed to Greece again and said: “All Cretans are liars and all I say is the truth.” Although the Greeks on the shore weren’t aware of what he had said the first time, they were truly puzzled.
If someone says “I always lie”, are they telling the truth? Or are they lying?
Couldn’t agree more Rev. I posted this earlier on CiF, but apparently few seem to understand what’s just been released by Westminster or its possible/probable ramifications. They’re still too busy screaming foul over uppity Scots telling them what’s good for them. 🙂
“The Guardian story also revealed that the joint statement ruling out monetary union had been imposed on the Treasury by the leaders of the Better Together campaign, notably the former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling.”
Oh, there we go. The blame game.
Alistair Darling is so going to carry the can for any failure now. Mind you just how Westminster can square saying ‘its all his fault for making us do this’, well that’s another pickle altogether. 😀
I’m not overly convinced this was an accidental leak or admission. Nobody in such a ministerial position as claimed makes accidental statements. This stinks to high heaven of more negotiation in the public view and an attempt to make the FM shift on positions over currency and Trident. Easily deniable if it goes completely south, but risky nonetheless as it still damages Westminster credibility.
Getting interesting.
Morag,
As regards the ‘analysis’ by flim flam man, I’m more inclined to believe the advice of the Scottish Government Fiscal Commission, which has advised that based upon their considerable expertise and experience of economics, the best option at present for both Scotland and the rUK is a formal currency union.
For the record, the Fiscal commission working group consists of:
Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett, Professor Sir Jim Mirrlees, Professor Frances Ruane, Professor Joseph Stiglitz, and Mr Crawford Beveridge.
link to scotreferendum.com
link to scotland.gov.uk
Morag, sorry to hear some of your email friends are prepared to fall out with you over the completely invented speculation that our FM would be prepared to commit electoral suicide by putting Trident on the table as a bargaining chip.
However on TV earlier today, on both Murnaghan and Politics Scotland, he unambiguously stated that Trident removal was NOT up for negotiation! So I hope you can refer your email correspondents to both of these TV appearances, and the FM’s emphatic rejection of this pure speculation in The Express unionist rag.
proudscot,
Totally agree, and Nicola Strugeon repeated the same assertion, that the nukes are completely non negotiable on TV yesterday. They will go.
Andrew Morton
By that reckoning we’re already ahead, somewhere in the low fifties. By September we’ll be cruising above 60%
I totally agree, Andrew. I think we are ahead now, but by how much, would be very hard to say. We could be at 52%. We could be at 60%.
The only thing I do know, is we don’t stop. Keep converting those who are willing to listen. As more and more people step over to ‘Yes’, the groundswell will grow to a point where even those with doubts will begin to say, ‘Well, stuff it! If everybody else appears to be voting ‘Yes’, then I might as well too!’
At the end of the day, I know 50.1% is all we need, but I want it high (60 to 70%) just so there is no come back with Darling crying ‘foul’ or having Lamont moaning about re-counts. Get it in the bag, and then we can head straight to the negotiating table.
The truth will out, it (almost) always does.
When you have a temporary organisation represented by such a disparate, fractious bunch as the UK’s Tories, Labour and Lib Dems ‘supposedly’ acting as one, where lying and falsification is their raison d’etre, there will always be one on the inside who, either through actually having a conscience, or to ‘get at’ someone else with whom they don’t agree, or, even through sheer spite, will take the chance to set the cat among the pigeons.
“Trust us! We really are better together.”…? I. don’t. think. so. Backstabbers the lot of them.
So if AD says no to CU now, what was he saying here?
link to newsnetscotland.com
Why the change?
kind regards
puzzled of nearly tram city
Of course, silly me, the gamble to boot YES into the long grass (I knew I should have read the article my customary three times)…….no more red wine for me this evening!
no longer puzzled, just half hissed of nearly tram city
The Scottish Sun rip into Mr Darling today( i read it while waiting in the Chippy honest).
His incredible After Dinner speaking earnings (£250k since leading No Campaign) gets large written coverage and even warrant an Editorial cartoon with the picturing Alistair hugging piles of cash and duly cooing “We are so Better Together”.
So for Fall Guys we have Carmichael and Darling…who will be next I wonder?
What especially disturbs me about the Greg Christison piece is the “leak” from the “senior SNP source”. I am completely confident that was invented. Either a flat-out lie or a wilful misrepresentation of something quite different that was said.
I am in the position of having associates who are beholden to Greg Christison in an unrelated matter, and the suggestion that a long spoon is required is a difficult one to make.
SquareHaggis Reporting
Just back from The Big Debate Aberdeen
100+ in attendance 70% Yes, 15% No 15% DK
Yes side gave good representation in the form of
John Finnie
(Independent MSP for Highlands and Islands) Very Good
Ciaran McRae
(Yes Aberdeen Co-ordinator) Not Bad
Ben Wray
(Jimmy Reid Foundation & Common Weal Project Policy Co-ordinator) Very, very Good
And on the NO side
Sandra MacDonald
(United for Labour) Poor/Obstresperous
Raymond Mennie
(Communist Party of Britain, Dundee Organiser) Affa, Affa LOUD! Hardcore and quite shocking, ma lugs are still ringing.
Attempted take-over. Told folks not to bother looking on Twitter for any info as none of it is backed up by facts. It was filmed and is a joy to behold! Will keep an eye out for this footage. Out the door rapid-style at the end, nae takin’ questions and there were plenty..
Kathryn Russell
(Better Together Aberdeen) Poor/Clueless
Also in attendance as an audience member was none other than Ann Begg who asked the question “What would A Salmond deal for on the curency if not nuclear weapons?”
She got a resounding booing at this point and again when John Finnie pulled her up on her Welfare Cap vote.
This was a non-heckling event but due to Ann Begg heckling at the end there wasn’t a show of hands as the host just wanted to close the meeting.
Overall, strong sense of a Yes here in Aiberdeen folks. Looking Good.
Desimond says:
“His [Alistair Darling] incredible After Dinner speaking earnings (£250k since leading No Campaign)…”
£250k… Really? Bloody hell! That is, indeed, incredible… and downright repugnant. (Then again, if there are people/organisations/companies/think tanks out there willing to pay large sums to hear Darling speak, who is he to refuse!)
If Darling was the chief architect of “united against Scotland sharing the pound”, it was probably a reflection of his own personal priority – money.
He didn’t seem to appreciate any bigger picture whatsoever. He just saw cash.
The main thing I’ve taken from all this is to write what a great job Alistair Darling and Blair McDougall are doing at every possible opportunity.
They are our saviours in so many ways.
@GH Graham@5.03 – I hear that Aldi is hiring though
With his history of till dipping his chances of a job with Aldi are slimmer than the gable end of a pound note..
link to dailymotion.com
@FlimFlamMan
I think you and I essentially agree about mainstream economics and its failings: I have the impression that you are also quite impressed by the analysis of MMT theorists and also perhaps by Steve Keene
Where we differ is not in the theory: in CU the rUK would still have a sovereign currency, because in reality Scotland would have very little influence. So I do not think you are correct in stating they cannot grant this
What I do feel strongly about is that Scotland would not have a sovereign currency in any meaningful sense: and that makes the country very vulnerable to decisions taken to deal with problems we do not actually have: as now, in fact
I would not vote other than yes because of it: but I do think we absolutely need a Scottish currency and also a central bank ASAP
@Robert Louis
It is certainly not a daft idea to accept the report of the fiscal commission if you believe that eminent economists have some credibility left: I don’t but there is no reason why you should not reject MMT or post keynesian analyses if you find them unhelpful.
What you should be aware of is the fact that alternative economic positions exist and that the hegemony of the orthodox is not warranted if you found on their track record in the real world
Mr Salmond was trained as an economist in a bank, as I understand it. He will have been educated to accept that mainstream analysis and since before the crash he has had other things on his mind. That is not to say he has not considered the alternatives but I suspect he is less likely than most to be able to adopt them because of his background. I could be very wrong about that of course: and certainly it is an open question whether a small country could take a radical course even if fully convinced of the merits: for the plutocrats have a very strong investment in TINA and will fight tooth and nail to prevent such an experiment in economics getting a fair wind
“Took the plunge for an over 55% YES outcome this morning.”
Me too! 😀
It maybe shows how out of touch Westminster politicians are when the likes of Flipper can convince them that the key to killing Scottish independence is to tell Scots they don’t have England’s permission to use their existing historic bank notes.
Why would anyone (especially in a position of authority) listen to Flipper? Don’t they have a system for filtering crap ideas?
Driving home from a wedding late last night, the radio announcer said “And its now 2am as the clocks move forward”.
In my head all I could hear was Danny Alexanders soulless voice muttering to some BBC interviewer
“We don’t want to have to change our watches every time we cross the border, that will happen if England decide they dont want BST anymore!”
@ Fiona
Salmond has a degree in economics, (and Medieval History)from St Andrews. He was an economist first (in a team) in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, (where he learned how Scotland was marginalised by Whitehall) and later joined the RBS soon promoted to Oil Economist… obviously where he learned the true extent of that ever “vanishing” resource.
He left the RBS before it became Fred the Shred’s personal bank account, and planned to take over the universe, and relegate ordinary customers to gullible fodder fooled out of their life’s earnings … and a bit more.
@ Grouse Beater
Thanks for the detailed information: doesn’t change my point much so far as I can see. Mr Salmond is schooled in mainstream economic orthodoxy and in the beliefs of bankers, to a greater degree than most of us. It would not be in the least suprising if he did not accept their propositions to a great extent particularly since they hold such sway in political circles as well
JLT
What we need to watch is Labour’s fav tactic of harvesting postal votes, the will be piling them up somewhere ready for they day. They are quite vicious towards the very thought of Independence as we see and hear every day.
They have good reason to worry, and will sell their soul rather than see it happen, in fact already have.
We cannot trust any of the Unionist mob, least of all, Labour. Shame that it is, that is indeed how, it is.
How nice it is to see our good friend Alistair Darling front and centre on this one. 🙂 Now what is it that we can say about him?
As number two to the useless one at the Treasury he was incompetent.
As number one at the Treasury he was incompetent.
As number one at Better Together he is incompetent.
Hmm, don’t know about anyone else but I think I see a trend forming here. If I can borrow something from a certain T.V. programme, Alistair Darling you are incompetent…Good bye! 😛
This is a disaster for BT in more ways than one. Apart from their credibility collapsing, Scotland will not have to negotiate anything to participate in a Currency Union. As the cabinet minister stated it’s essential for financial stability.
SquareHaggis:
She also happens to work for the aforementioned Anne Begg…
This week has certainly felt like a turning point- it may take some time for the significance of the guardian piece to sink in with the wider electorate. The damage limitation excercise is unedifying to say the least.
I hope the journalists run with it and if they do the damage to BT will be fatal. Who could have predicted this would come from the guardian after their unequivocal position?
Robert Louis
I’m no economist and defer to the fiscal comissions findings- as such I am prepared for the inevitable currency union that is expected to take place. My fears are that we are tying ourselves to a country whose government and opposition have shown such hatred snd disdain towards Scotland’s people and sense of nationhood that it would not surprise me if, even within a successful currency union, their resentment could potentially last a hundred years or more.
I would be for our negotiating team and government making a decision on currency after a Yes vote and once the tone of negotiations was clear. It is now laid bare that it is OUR decision. I fully expect Westminster’s stance to change. I don’t expect they will suddenly become our best mates all of a sudden.
I take Stuart’s point that we couldn’t just sit back while our biggest trading partner fails but being dragged down with them in a currency union doesn’t appeal either if you put it like that. I know ruk’s potential to fail would increase without Scotland but the size of their economy compared to our smaller and healthier economy is inescapable.
But hell- I aint saying now is the the time to change position, I am saying we have options. My inner dickhead would love, after a resounding Yes, with CU laid face up on the table for Alex to produce a new freshly minted banknote.
@ Fiona
You’re presuming he is not aware of other orthodoxes, or has not had an opportunity to compare one doctrine with with another, and in practice in other nations.
His administration presides over a Scotland schooled in Whitehall economics as permitted by the USA. That is not to presuppose he will never alter such policies when autonomy is secured, or suggest a new way forward is guided by someone other than himself.
Fiona
Yes, I think we do. The Post Keynesians in general and MMT in particular clearly have a better understanding of the way economies and currencies actually function. You just have to look at the quality of their forecasts. That and the fact that their descriptions of monetary operations actually match reality.
I have a lot of time for Keen – PK but not MMT – as well, especially once he got his accounting sorted out, and even more now he is working with Stephanie Kelton from the MMT group. If I could get any single economist advising the SG, or any other government for that matter, it would be Bill Mitchell. I’d love to get Mitchell and Keen in a room together.
Well, if it’s a union in name only, with actual control remaining in Westminster, then yes, rUK would retain the capacity that the UK currently has. Then the only problem is the neoliberals in charge pretending that capacity doesn’t exist. I’m coming at this though from the view that a currency union would be the genuine article, and also to try to point out that some of the ideas about what the UK/rUK needs or will want to bargain for are based on bad economics.
Absolutely. In some ways a currency union in name only is the worst option. Worse than simple sterlingisation in that it would at least somewhat tie Scotland into a structure that gives no advantage. Simple sterlingisation would be easier to end since it would involve no formal agreements or treaties.
And yes, a sovereign Scottish currency is far and away the best option. I was persuaded by scottish_skier that the Yes campaign were right to avoid scaring people with talk of new currencies, but Osborne and co. put an end to that, and it’s plain the Scottish people aren’t scared.
What’s your view on the Bank of England’s pretty thorough endorsement of endogenous money? Are they trying to educate the people at large or the politicians? Or something else entirely?
I wonder if Darling will still be so keen to have a TV debate with Alex Salmond after these revelations?
Sorry for going O/T Stu, but I found this on Twitter some darned fool put it up. 🙂
link to tinyurl.com
Forget an oil fund like Norway folks cause we’ll have our very own COAL FUND¬! 😛
I wonder if that photo was also taken when the 2 numpties have just been informed that Johann Lamont has been named debater of the year. 🙂
“Don’t replace Alistair Darling – put him in charge” – screams the headline at
link to tinyurl.com
Hard to believe but Alan Cochrane at The Telegraph is arguing that Darling should be given complete charge of the BT Campaign cos he thinks running it by a 3 party committee isn’t working.
Hello ! Darling is the chairman, now, you buffoon.
If the BT campaign is a train wreck of misjudgments & miscalculations, it’s because Darling is at the helm, not despite him.
@Doug Daniel,
Yep, that makes sense.
More telling than that was when Ms Begg gave a big shouty out to Raymond Mennie and gloated how she “voted” for him back in the day.
Don’t know what she’s on but it wasn’t pretty.
Heckling at a specifically non-heckling event AND spoiling the debate – sadly Westminster has wheedled it’s way into her poor addled wee brenn.
I was persuaded by scottish_skier that the Yes campaign were right to avoid scaring people with talk of new currencies
No idea which of my (normally wild theory) posts led you to this conclusion.. 😉
I did wonder in the beginning and thought a pragmatic ‘things will be familiar but different’ approach made sense. Certainly in light of the Devo Max vote.
Since then I’ve been impressed at how little importance the electorate place on what the bits or paper or metal they hand over to buy a loaf of bread look like. Also at how they reacted to the ‘You can’t have the £’ tactic; with no real panic, just anger and distrust.
IMO, currency still matters very little to the electorate. However, arguments around it help confirm who they trust and who they don’t.
Square Haggis
Thanks for reporting back from the big debate. I am heartened by what you tell us. It appears to be consistent with all of the pro-yes results from the many debates in the series and the assorted uni debates that have taken place in the last couple of months.
Does anyone have a handle on the figures from all of these debates? Each one is of course not exactly a great cross-section and must be treated as such but I have no idea if it just appears that Yes is winning big in all of these debates or if I am just reading about the ones where the majority are Yes by the end.
The poll in September is of course the one that counts but I don’t think the results of these debates are insignificant. It may be that the poll at the start of such debates is more significant than the poll at the end for instance.
The article referred to by G H Graham above in The Telegraph is a disgrace, almost slander! Apparently “The separatist effort is run on a one-man, one-vote system and Alex Salmond is the one man with that one vote. What he says, goes. No questions. No arguments” – really???
Diane,
I try & stick with one point per post so decided not to mention what you just described.
Cochrane is no different from the rest of the unionist cabal; aiming at one man as if the entire country’s future depended on it.
But rest at ease, knowing that the more unionists point fingers at the First Minister while screaming absurd nonsense, the weaker their argument for maintaining the status quo.
After all, if the reasons for sticking with bankrupt Britain were so compelling, we surely would have heard of at least one by now.
I’m still waiting.
All you buggers putting bets on 55%+ with Ladbrokes have made them suspend betting.
I was going to lump some more on after getting 9/1 a while ago! 🙂
@Tam Jardine,
Speaking to some of those in attendance the feeling is definitely upbeat here at the moment. Questions asked were intelligent, probing and direct. The pannelists for Yes were positive and stayed on message, the No’ers were ill-prepared, ill-informed and desperate. I got the feeling they didn’t know what they believed in.
When the Yessers spoke heads nodded and appreciation shown, with the No’ers folk stared at the floor or sighed.
The cracks have appeared in the facade and the wind is howling thru.
I will endeavour to chase up the organisers to see if there is data on polling in the next few days and will report back any findings.
scottish_skier
More a combination of several of your wildly theoretical – theoretically wild? – posts 🙂 You seem to have a handle on Scottish polling, and the points you made tallied with the, admittedly minimal, research I did. This was all before Westminster said no to a currency union.
The lack of fear once Westminster made their announcement doesn’t necessarily mean the softly softly approach was wrong; the lack of fear may be partly down to that very approach preparing the ground over the previous months. Letting people think about one thing at a time. Westminster generally acting like ***** over the whole thing probably helped a bit too.
I remember saying (jokingly) the main reason Osborne, Balls and that other bloke backed Darling was that he had told them how much he had spent on the “goodbye to the pound” leaflets.
Albert Herring,
It’s ok with me, (ladbrokes)
6/1 Yes over 55%
7/2 Yes win
@FlimFlamMan
I was persuaded by scottish_skier that the Yes campaign were right to avoid scaring people with talk of new currencies, but Osborne and co. put an end to that, and it’s plain the Scottish people aren’t scared.
I have heard this argument and it probably has some merit. I am not persuaded by it, though. “Don’t frighten the horses” does not seem to me to be an honest way to proceed if you do not actually believe what you are saying. But as I have said, I take the view that Mr Salmond and the SNP are orthodox in their economic thinking and they do genuinely believe that CU is best for both parties. It is interesting that they chose some neo-keynesians for the fiscal commission, but not Bill Mitchell or Steve Keen or Randy Wray, or anyone else of that sort. They may not have been available, but I don’t think that is the whole story. It is more likely a combination of choosing those who reflect their views, and avoiding any possibility that the commission could be attacked for lack of orthodoxy. That makes sense, certainly.
I think that in some ways the Yes campaign has been timid in trying to ensure as little change as possible at least so far as currency is concerned. Scots are used to having different bank notes and there is some pride in a national currency regardless of people’s understanding of how it works. They don’t like a change in its value or composition because they (rightly) expect to be ripped off when that happens: but a scottish currency composed as now (maybe called something else and maybe not: don’t care really) and launched at parity could readily have been presented as a positive thing and still can, I hope. I agree that the Westminster rejection of it has given the scottish government much more freedom on this because it is abundantly clear that the Scottish people are not particularly bothered by this: so that is one anxiety allayed, I think
What’s your view on the Bank of England’s pretty thorough endorsement of endogenous money? Are they trying to educate the people at large or the politicians? Or something else entirely?
I am not at all sure what is going on there: as ever we are short of hard information.
For what little it is worth I suspect that it is a precursor to a change in policy.From my point of view the present policy cannot work and will lead to disaster for the people in the UK or rUK depending on our vote. While I think that plutocrats truly wish to dismantle the state and have cynically used the “economy is like a household budget” story for decades in order to further that aim, they may not wish to kill the goose. The people will only take so much pain – you can do what you like to the poor but when they are exhausted the austerity moves ever up the social scale: and most people who imagine they are middle class just aren’t. They have clout and they are not so easy to manipulate as those with no voice. I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for those who supported it till it hit them: but there is no doubt they are hurting and they don’t know why or how to change it. They are looking for an alternative, I think, hence UKIP (and other fascist type parties elsewhere in europe). That may be a worry, but how to mitigate the outcomes without a change in narrative?
They have persuaded people that sovereign debt is bad, and committed to reducing it. They have persuaded people that deficit is bad, so likewise. Despite the mainstream view that the confidence fairy will lead to increased spending from business and increased spending by consumers it is not happening and it never will. People just do not behave as their theory suggests and they do not take on extra debt when they are already up to their necks. Nor do they get the opportunity to do it even if they are willing: for the banks have pocketed the funds made available to encourage that: and the next housing bubble is not going to help
They have to change course and they will find that they need to undo all the “education” they have done to date in order to achieve it
Perhaps it is the beginning of that
But I do not know.
I’m a betting man, I’m also a talking man and the amount of people I’ve talked to on the street, in work, in the supermarket and online I’d say YES is sitting around the 75% mark. Now imagine the utter euphoria when Scotland wins that YES vote, that will rub off on our national football team, I’m not saying they can win €uro 2016 but I fancy a tenner double on the +55% YES win and the national team reaching the quarter finals. £10 Strachan & Salmond double.
@Baheid
Aye, they suspended betting then reduced the odds from 7’s to 6’s.
Should be odds-on – must be the bet of the century!
Fiona
I was beginning a long ramble, but there was more wine in it than reason, so here’s something shorter. I’d pretty much go along with everything you said there. Your assessment of the B of E stance seems plausible; I do wonder if the Westminster class has become too neoliberal even for the Bank, and they’re attempting to reset economic thinking. That’s probably excessive optimism though, as with my hope that the SG is looking beyond economic orthodoxy.
I mostly agree with this, but I’m not sure about that middle bit. The English riots in 2011, and the poll tax riots before that, show that the poor will react, and strongly, given enough provocation. Ideally the reaction would come before that breaking point is reached, and in productive rather than destructive ways. That’s why the energy that the independence debate is generating is so uplifting. The debate over what is possible is gradually generating the very energy needed to make those possibilities real. And not just for the vote, but for the work needed afterwards.
I suppose the counter example of how badly people in general, and the poor in particular, can be treated can be seen in what the people of Greece, Spain, Portugal and so on are bearing. There are almost constant protests, but despite everything they want to stick with the Euro, and major violence has not yet erupted. Breaking points are so hard to predict, but they are there somewhere, and the neoliberal machine keeps pushing towards them.
I had a quick scan of the front pages today in the shop with a smile on my face until I got to the Express was it? When I laughed out loud in the middle of a busy shop standing by myself. Not very often the headlines go the way of YES, still wouldn`t fund the scum bags by funding their sh*^e though. Don`t know if i`ll ever trust the corporate media propagandist`s ever again tbh.
I’m especially sore at the Express because that journalist is the only one in the mainstream press who has picked up at all on my Lockerbie work. It just about choked me to have to co-operate with him on a couple of stories, although I did my best.
I need a longer spoon.
Pentland Firth, welcome!I know you were here already but welcome to post-lurkerness 🙂
I mostly lurk myself but always read all the comments, quite often feel like I’m in the conversation even though I’ve not posted anything! Fantastic community here.
Squarehaggis, thanks for the report, that’s great to hear. Do you know if it was filmed?
I get the same feeling as some other folk posting that we might actually be past 50% now, I know alot of folk who’ve come from Undecided or even No over to Yes and they’re so much happier for it 🙂 The few hardcore No voters I know are getting increasingly irrational and angry when the referendum is mentioned, they won’t admit it but I think they know they’re going to lose.
GH Graham says
“I hear that Aldi is hiring though.”
He could count the beans, oh?
JLT says
“The whole Better Together Campaign is starting to look like the parachute jump from hell, where the parachutist himself is holding onto a big old heavy anvil while unable to pull the string …and that big ol’ ground below is beginning to look mighty close!”
What? like this you mean?
Two men were walking through the woods and came upon a big black, deep hole. One man picked up a rock and tossed it into the hole and stood listening for the rock to hit bottom. There was no sound.
He turned to the other guy and said “that must be a deep hole…let’s throw a bigger rock in there and listen for it to hit bottom.” The men found a bigger rock and both picked it up and lugged it to the hole and dropped it in.
They listened for some time and never heard a sound. Again, they agreed that this must be one deep hole and maybe they should throw something even bigger into it.
One man spotted a rail-road tie nearby. They picked up the tie, grunting and groaning, and lugged it to the hole. They tossed it in. No sound. All of a sudden, a goat came flying out of the woods, running like the wind, and flew past the men and jumped straight into the hole. The men were amazed.
About that time, an old hayseed farmer came out of the woods and asked the men if they had seen a goat. One man told the farmer of the incredible incident they had just witnessed…they had just seen this goat fly out of the woods and run and leap into the big hole. The man asked the farmer if this could have been his goat.
The old farmer said “naw, that can’t be my goat…he was chained to a railroad tie.”
Les Wilson says
“So the question is, what will they offer us, for taking the risk of being in a sterling Union?”
At last,
that really IS the the question Les
its about time this was pointed out to these arrogant people.
sQUARE hAGGIS SAYS
“This was a non-heckling event but due to Ann Begg heckling at the end there wasn’t a show of hands as the host just wanted to close the meeting.”
Why do you think she did it?
I’d been wondering why, for the ordinary voter, the currency union stuff seemed a bit irrelevant. Then chatting to a friend last night I realised why – kind of obvious, really. It’s because right now, for ordinary punters, there’s no currency union.
Whenever he makes a trip south of the border, he makes sure he always changes all his Scottish bank notes into Bank of England ones. Nearly every time he’s tried to use a Scottish note with a London cabbie, he’s been refused.
To compound their gaffe, they demanded, “where is your ‘plan B'”?
Well now their ‘plan A’ (project fear) has failed, what is their ‘plan B’?
I’ve often posted that unionists make the best arguments for independence…. I see no departure from that incompetence…. not complaining mind.
@jOHN kING
Aye John, it’s good to see democracy in action, Blue Labour style.
You could smell the sulphur.
Truly despicable.
@GH Graham
Alan Cochrane obviously missed the news that the Yes Central have admitted they have lost control of the Yes campaign and are absolutely delighted about it.
If the unionist side are going to continue this misconception that it is all about Alex Salmond and every Yes voter is controlled by him like robots then we should not interrupt them.
Please disregard this missive and destroy after reading.
I don’t want a currency union. This has always struck me as a very timid and “safe” choice. I get the argument that we don’t want our biggest trading partner’s economy to crumble due to the repercussions it’d have on our own economy. However, if we used our Scottish pound and pegged it at a 1:1 exchange rate to Sterling, it’d still make trades with Scotland appealing to English businesses? It’s a real source of frustration for me that the other currency options aren’t publicly discussed much or at all. Now that the Scottish Govt is aware that the currency issue doesn’t bother/frighten the electorate particularly, I wish they’d deviate from their “our Fiscal Commission with Mssrs Stieglitz and Mirlees said so” line and give more attention to the alternatives. I know at least one person who will be voting No if we choose a currency union but would vote Yes if there was a commitment to a Scottish Pound before the referendum.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell: 30 March, 2014 at 4:40 pm
“IT QUITE CLEARLY SAID “BULLINGDON”, .
Indeed, Gideon attended St Paul’s. He was then given “a demyship” to Magdalen College, University of Oxford where he was then invited to join The Bullingdon Club. (and with apology to Gilbert and Someotherman), “Now he is the leader of the Queen’s Treasuree”.
I don’t know if its as high as 60% but I think we are marginally in the lead.
Aberdeen has a debate at Korova Bar tonight from 6pm.
Anyone from ABZ on here, should get along to it as it might be full of unionist fkwit’s.
FlimFlamMan30: – March, 2014 at 4:45 pm:
“That external deficit is precisely why the rUK will need to retain currency sovereignty; it is that sovereignty that allows the UK, and later the rUK… … …”
What rUnited Kingdom would that be, FlimFlammam30?
The title,“United Kingdom”, (correctly), legally refers to a bipartite union of, would you believe, KINGDOMS?. The status quo ante of all bipartite unions is – TA! DA! – TWO independent partners. Ergo – There cannot be an rUnited KINGDOM , just a return to two independent Kingdoms. Go read Articles I & III of the Treaty of Inion.
The sooner we get rid of Trident, the sooner we can drill off the west coast. That would lessen the need for fracking and we can wait for the technology to either improve or prove its value.
Robert
I’m just going along with the name that appears to be the most commonly used to describe the bit of the UK of GB and NI that isn’t Scotland. You can call it Geraldine if you like, or Bob, or RS2014/9. I don’t much care.
I do like your use of bold italic though; I lack the confidence to use them together.
geeo@6;11pm
what is that all about either they are or they arent.
know look what you have done my bloody brains on fire
Further to our brief discussion of the meaning of the BoE’s statements about endogenous money, I found this interesting
link to theguardian.com
On the surface it looks like a plan to make full employment more of a priority than it has been for 30 years: but it isn’t because they are talking about NAIRU and not full employment – slippery things, those big words.
However it seems to me that the narrative is changing and it may not just be lies. They will have to do it slowly if they do it at all, because they have sold a pup for 30 years and it will take time to undo it
Might just be an election tactic but it may be a straw in the wind.
Fiona
Yes, the NAIRU is harder to kill than the walking dead in a cheap zombie film (I love zombie films though, cheap or not). And in fact it’s worse than that; did you see how uncomfortable Osborne looked with his drivel laced response when asked to explain exactly what full employment meant? And this is Osborne we’re talking about; uncomfortable comes with the territory.
On its own I wouldn’t read much into it, but in combination with the BoE’s recent statement it looks a little more interesting, intriguing. The BoE’s statement itself, and the videos, are genuinely interesting though. Still don’t know what to make of that, other than that it’s a good step.
If I were you though, I wouldn’t be voting No in the hope that Westminster are about to ‘get it’.
@FlimFlamMan
Won’t be voting no , as I am sure you realise. Even if they “get it” it doesn’t change the fact that what they wish to achieve is plutocracy. Managing it better does not improve it: quite the reverse
Fiona
Exactly. I should have winked after the quip about voting No.